Re: NEW ocaml licence proposal by upstream, will be part of the 3.08.1 release going into sarge.

[Steve McIntyre <steve@einval.com>]

Raul Miller writes:
>On Thu, Aug 26, 2004 at 02:19:23PM +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
>> This excerpt is quite clear:
>> 
>> A Program may specify GPL2 and "any later version" - check
>> If the Program just says "GPL", the recipient may use any version - check
>>
>> If the Program says "GPL v2" alone, there's nothing in S9 that leads
>> to later versions being applicable.
>
>I can see why you'd think that.  However, that's not one of the terms
>offered by GPL v2.  Perhaps there will be a GPL v3 which offers something
>analogous to "GPL v2 alone" as one of its terms.

What on earth do you mean by "not one of the terms offered by GPL v2"?
The author is free to pick any of the 3 options here and be covered
under GPL. Heck, they could even say "v4 or earlier" if they wished!

>[Note also that this mode of thinking is very similar in nature to that
>behind the desert island and dissident tests, as well as being similar
>in nature to the thinking which claims that a license which offers extra
>freedoms beyond those required by the DFSG makes a license non-free if
>only the copyright holders have those freedoms.]

Wuh? I'm not trying to claim anything about freedom here; I think
you're factually confused about the text of the GPL v2, and that's
what I'm trying to correct. Can you point to anything in the GPL that
forces an author to license under a v2-or-later clause?

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.                                steve@einval.com
"I've only once written 'SQL is my bitch' in a comment. But that code 
 is in use on a military site..." -- Simon Booth